Our local cell site is now several times faster than my wired ADSL connection.

Given that the wired connection is unlikely to change any time soon (unless anyone at VF or Chorus knows different?) then the only realistic speed upgrade I can get for the next 2 or 3 years is to use mobile instead of fixed.

However, I would want a 50gb allowance and no mobile plans get close to that.

My question is why don't they?

It can't be a technical limit - you can get 3Gb on an iPhone, so 10 iPhones = 30gb etc so that can't be the issue.

But surely the amount they charge is proportionate to the customers using it? That is, many customers will make it cheap and few customers make it expensive.

Thus making it prohibitively expensive may well become self fulfilling...!

Take for example the current iPhone plans.

The phone is 'free' at $120/months for 24 months. The phone costs $1100 or thereabouts. 24 x 120 = $2880. Less the phone leaves $1780 for data and calls. Divide that by 24 and it costs about $74 for 3 gb of data and 400 minutes of calls per month

Calls cost 45c/minute x 400 = $180

From this example we can see that they are (assumedly) still making a return on what appears at face value to be a monthly 'loss' of around $105!!

Therefore it seems (again, at face value: obviously I don't know what internal costs etc are) that 50Gb of plain 3G data ought to be possible for rather less than $260 without not getting a return.

Put another way, my contribution to that return could be $100 or whatever per month but at $260 it will be nil...!

I'm sure it is not quite that simple, but you can see what I mean, I am sure.

johnr: So then everyone jumps onto mobile broadband and then you are back to speeds quite possible much slower than the fixed line connection now

Dead right John and then you would have a whole bunch of unhappy customers instead of just one.

Anybody wanting 50GB of data per month in a small town should have done their research better before buying the property. Just like it's not a good idea to try and run a video rental library in the middle of nowhere.

It is much more expensive to deliver the same data over 3G wireless than it is through a landline is the simple answer. Vodafone hypothetically can serve x customers in an area over their 3G network, but may be able to serve 50x via the same landline equipment.

johnr: So then everyone jumps onto mobile broadband and then you are back to speeds quite possible much slower than the fixed line connection now

Dead right John and then you would have a whole bunch of unhappy customers instead of just one.

Anybody wanting 50GB of data per month in a small town should have done their research better before buying the property. Just like it's not a good idea to try and run a video rental library in the middle of nowhere.

Oh sure.

Availability of broadband

(a) is not really a primary consideration to siting a domestic family home(b) is an issue that may not have been relevant when you moved but may have become relevant in the years since then...!

I'd like to see anyone avoid domestic strife (and possibly divorce!) when using the following line to their lady wife:

"Yes, darling I know that is your dream house and that it offers everything you have always wanted at a bargain price. I'm sorry though - we can't buy it because the broadband is too slow."

It hardly seems unreasonable to expect technology to catch up with your needs - and, as I said, VF 3G has done just that (thanks John!). All I am saying is that it would be nice to have a choice of plans that enable users for whom it is the only high speed option to make use of it in a home setting.

grant_k: Anybody wanting 50GB of data per month in a small town should have done their research better before buying the property. Just like it's not a good idea to try and run a video rental library in the middle of nowhere.

Oh sure.

Availability of broadband

(a) is not really a primary consideration to siting a domestic family home

(b) is an issue that may not have been relevant when you moved but may have become relevant in the years since then...!

Actually, you couldn't be more wrong. Before buying our current property, we did some research and found that Wireless Broadband was coming in about a year. The property has some very high hilltops so I knew it wouldn't be a problem to get a wireless service. I knew this would be essential because it was unlikely we could get ADSL from a roadside cabinet more than 7km away.

Geektastic: I'd like to see anyone avoid domestic strife (and possibly divorce!) when using the following line to their lady wife:

"Yes, darling I know that is your dream house and that it offers everything you have always wanted at a bargain price. I'm sorry though - we can't buy it because the broadband is too slow."

You are completely wrong there too!

My wife knows that availability of fast broadband is one of my pre-requisites for accepting a property, just as I know that plentiful water supply is one of her pre-requisites (she is a farmer). We each defer to the other's requirements in these two essential areas and make some compromises with other less vital areas.

mobile is not the same as fixed. just because it is priced and sold the same way ($ per GB) doesn't mean it is the same thing. It is VASTLY more expensive to run mobile broadband than fixed broadband. One only has to look at the relative size of the datacaps to realise this is the case. If it were not, then somebody like 2Degrees with no fixed infrastructure could come into the market with 50GB/$80 and clean up. The fact that they don't do this should tell you that the economics are simply too far apart to make it worthwhile.

Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums: